forms. At least some of these forms will be online and the cooperation and commitment of the computer science community will be necessary.

The focus on democratic societies alone is limiting: It implies Shapiro’s ideas are applicable to about half of the world’s population. This is a huge number but the other half could also benefit from additional democratization. Democracy comes in shades of gray and processes that degrade or enrich democracy are perpetually at play in all countries. Hence, determining the level of e-democracy readiness is not trivial although the need to do so is essential. Moreover, the problems humankind faces are global even if the negative consequences of these problems are borne unequally. But opening up e-democracies to the people of the world would likely be problematic as governments (and media monopolies and other powerful entities) might feel inclined to nudge their citizens to vote their way.

Shapiro also makes several discon-
certing technological recommenda-
tions although limited editorial space
and my lack of knowledge of the tech-
nological particulars prevent an exten-
sive analysis. Technology is embedded
within social contexts that cannot be
separated from the technology in use.
Even democratic functions that seem
most conducive to automation such
as voting have not yet demonstrated
the necessary legitimacy to warrant
universal adoption. And the idea of
conducting the necessary discussion
and deliberation without surveillance
and harassment seems impossibly
utopian in this era of mass harvest-
ing of personal information. Beyond
that there are deep inherent risks in
staking future democracies on un-
proven technologies including block-
chain, cryptocurrencies, and smart
contracts. And handing over decision
making to an “autonomous, incor-
ruptible, transparent, and persistent
software agent” is essentially nondem-
ocratic, even if it is “programmed to
obey democratic decisions.”
Finally, Shapiro does not consider the
process of achieving e-democracy in any
depth. Thinking about how we get there
is crucial, non-trivial, and political—
According to Shapiro, e-democracy
“presupposes universal Internet access
as well as Net neutrality.” This seems
to imply that his prescriptions are of
no use in many settings (in the U.S., for
example, as well as most of the world)
where those attributes do not exist and,
unfortunately, may never exist. About
20% of adults in the U.S.—often the most
disadvantaged citizens—have neither
broadband at home nor smartphones
( https://pewrsr.ch/2kQtkrM; https://pe-
wrsr.ch/2inUJzB) and Net neutrality is
threatened. 6 If those conditions must
already exist (and I would propose add-
ing “non-surveilled” Internet access)
Shapiro’s proposal becomes utopian,
mostly irrelevant in the near term.

It was unclear to me from Shapiro’s “Point” column whether it is representative democracy that is in “retreat worldwide” or whether it is the political processes practiced in the world’s putative democratic societies. In other words, I was not clear whether representation itself is to be dispensed with. Nevertheless, I would still mention the seminal 1789 text Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen7 upon which his “Point” column is based supports that right (A6, A14). Although he does not use the term “direct democracy” he endorses a trajectory that “ gradually supplants traditional representative democracy by e-democracy.” This objective should not be seen as obvious, nor necessarily desirable. Perhaps the citizenry will want to employ “ representatives” who have governing expertise? Moreover, the goal of direct democracy may be unsound on practical grounds: How much time would the average person want to expend in a given day to consider every relevant proposal?

Missing Aspects

Shapiro takes an innovative approach
by using the Declaration as a proxy “cus-
tomer” for “humanity at large” to derive
requirements for future democratic
systems. While the Declaration is sur-
prisingly relevant and thorough, it says
little about recent developments in our
understanding of democracies and 21st-
century realities. Although individual
rights are fundamental to democracy
it is only through collective efforts
that non-trivial objectives are real-
ized. Democracies need spaces (or
settings) where people can assemble
and procedures with which they can
discuss, deliberate, and make deci-
sions. John Dewey pointed out that
the process of coming to a decision
is actually more important than the
decision itself. But this rich aspect
of democracy is often overlooked by
developers and funders. Citizens in-
teract with formal governmental pro-
cesses and within non-governmental
organizations such as labor unions,
nonprofits, and social movements.
In the future citizens may also par-
ticipate in global decision making.
(And we could be experimenting more
with that right now.) Improving the
ability of citizens to organize into vari-
ous types of collectivities could help
provide a more democratic playing
field. Increasing the involvement of
people who are marginalized includ-
ing undocumented people, people
in occupied territories, rural people,
refugees, prisoners, and people with-
out access to the Internet is critical.
The bottom line is that types and mis-
sions of various collectivities—as well
as their social contexts—are exceed-
ingly diverse and while the Declara-
tion focuses on “universal” rights, the
exercise of these rights (and the strug-
gles for them) will take a multitude of
Thinking
that democracy
can be reduced
to a computer
problem can
be a dangerous
distraction.